Jerko teacher wants to teach program on Darwin and Lincoln!
A news article about a teacher in Connnecticut said,
To me, the big problem is not about teaching evolution -- it is about teaching about Darwin and Lincoln in the same program! The only thing that the two men have in common is that they share the same putative birthdate -- and we are not even sure about Lincoln's birthdate because he was born on the frontier, where people tended to lose track of dates.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton also has an article about this.
Mark Tangarone, who teaches third, fourth, and fifth grade students in the Talented and Gifted (TAG) program at Weston Intermediate School, said he is retiring at the end of the current school year because of a clash with the school administration over the teaching of evolution.
“Under normal circumstances, I would have retired in two more years. However, I feel that because of an unacceptable administrative action, I can no longer continue teaching in Weston,” Mr. Tangarone said.
Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution — the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.
To me, the big problem is not about teaching evolution -- it is about teaching about Darwin and Lincoln in the same program! The only thing that the two men have in common is that they share the same putative birthdate -- and we are not even sure about Lincoln's birthdate because he was born on the frontier, where people tended to lose track of dates.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton also has an article about this.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/17/2010 12:08:00 PM
27 Comments:
Hey, Linking to Ed is not a bad idea. I mean the biggest traffic jump you've had all year was when he linked to you.
Maybe you can boost his numbers now. Awwwww, is this Ed's thank you gift?
You're so sweet.
You're saying the guy is a "jerko" because he wants to teach a curriculum associating two people with the same birth date - because we can't be sure they have the same birthdate?
Complete and utter bullshit. More plausible is the idea that you dislike Darwinism being taught, and wanted to find some flimsy excuse to discredit the guy. If your objection REALLY involves birth dates, provide some (any!) evidence that calls them into question.
Eric said,
>>>>>> Hey, Linking to Ed is not a bad idea. I mean the biggest traffic jump you've had all year was when he linked to you. <<<<<
I have gotten even bigger jumps as a result of being at the top of Sleazy PZ Myers' "killfile dungeon" list on his Pharyngula blog.
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> You're saying the guy is a "jerko" because he wants to teach a curriculum associating two people with the same birth date - because we can't be sure they have the same birthdate?
Complete and utter bullshit. More plausible is the idea that you dislike Darwinism being taught, and wanted to find some flimsy excuse to discredit the guy. If your objection REALLY involves birth dates, provide some (any!) evidence that calls them into question. <<<<<<
Did you read what I wrote, bozo? I said, "To me, the big problem is not about teaching evolution -- it is about teaching about Darwin and Lincoln in the same program!" IMO, linking Lincoln and Darwin would be inappropriate even if the two in fact had the same actual birthdates.
Eric said,
>>>>>> Yup, you certainly know how to get people who think you're an idiot to look at your site. <<<<<
Well, thanks for the compliment -- coming from you, it was really unexpected.
A teacher who tries to imply that Lincoln and Darwin were somehow connected, is pretty whacko. This apparently reflects the desperation of Darwin-fans, over the reality that Darwinism is collapsing, along with old Darwin's reputation. They will try any silly trick in an effort to prop the old boy up.
IMO, linking Lincoln and Darwin would be inappropriate even if the two in fact had the same actual birthdates.
And yet you provided no reason for why it'd be inappropriate other than to call their shared birth date into question.
Larry, are there people who would consider you their friend?
Whateverman said...
>>>>>IMO, linking Lincoln and Darwin would be inappropriate even if the two in fact had the same actual birthdates.
And yet you provided no reason for why it'd be inappropriate other than to call their shared birth date into question. <<<<<<
It is so obvious that I thought that stating reasons was unnecessary -- one was a scientist and the other was a lawyer and politician. They couldn't be more different -- they never would have been linked if they did not share the same putative birhdate.
>>>>> Larry, are there people who would consider you their friend? <<<<<<
What is your point here?
so what is actually your problem with teaching about Darwin and Lincoln? You don't exactly enunciate it.
Where's said,
>>>>>> so what is actually your problem with teaching about Darwin and Lincoln? You don't exactly enunciate it. <<<<<<
I think Jim Sherwood explained it pretty well.
Jim Sherwood - 'the desperation of Darwin-fans, over the reality that Darwinism is collapsing, along with old Darwin's reputation. They will try any silly trick in an effort to prop the old boy up.' HAH! You wish. It appears that the more biology, archeology and geology demonstrate the realities of evolution et al, the more shrill people like you and Larry become as any claims you have of a 'god' rapidly dwindle away. You people are the ones who are trying any silly trick in an effort to prop YOUR 'old boy' up. You people are delusional.
Eric barfed,
>>>>>>You people are the ones who are trying any silly trick in an effort to prop YOUR 'old boy' up. <<<<<
I am not trying to "prop up" anyone or anything, and I think the same goes for Jim Sherwood.
lets face it, you people will react to anything that even smells of a hint of the reality of evolution being taught rather than your god-based creationist fantasies.
The more biology, archeology and geology prove both evolution and the age of the earth, the more shrill and strident you people become in your denials and protestations.
I really can't imagine what it must take to convince yourselves (or have you really?) that the nonsense you spout is true.
These Darwin-fans are something else. The old-fashioned notion of the evolution of all life by chance plus natural selection, to which they are apparently hopelessly addicted, is supported by no good evidence: and is rather clearly in conflict with much evidence. So how to account for the persistence, even into the 21st century, of rabidly ranting Darwinists? Do they live in the dense forests, where bears constantly chase them and bite their asses so hard, that they conclude that life is nothing but competitive struggle and slaughter?
Darwin and Lincoln can be linked to more than just mere birthdays. Darwin was an avid abolitionist and advocated for the preservation of native cultures against rampant colonialism. Darwin's own evolution theory even goes on to downplay the notion of "race" as something of a social construct with no real biological significance. Both Lincoln and Darwin saw blacks and other non-white peoples as actual human beings and not property, animals, or some other dehumanized object. Such limited perception you have, Larry. Perhaps you fear that associating Darwin with Lincoln would hinder the Creationist's already blatantly dishonest efforts to demonize the man. I suppose in your twisted little world, Lincoln himself would deserve a "Friends of Hitler" award for suppressing the freedom for one group of humans to express their belief of scientifically-baseless racial superiority as justification for enslaving others. After all, those southerners sure loved their "Raaaaaghts."
A teacher who tries to imply that Lincoln and Darwin were somehow connected, is pretty whacko. This apparently reflects the desperation of Darwin-fans, over the reality that Darwinism is collapsing, along with old Darwin's reputation. They will try any silly trick in an effort to prop the old boy up.
Like most creationists, your level of thinking is about as deep as a rain puddle. Both Darwin and Lincoln were abolitionists, and while each each may have different reasons, they both saw the institution of slavery as an evil amoral practice. Although many would say that Lincoln had political and military reasons to free the slaves (keeping the Union together, crippling the southern economy to hinder their war effort), he would later write that even as a child, he considered slavery illegal and unjust, but due to the political climate at the time, declaring himself an abolitionist would destroy his political career.
It's like you can't see or think more than 2 feet in front of you, Jimmy. Creationism is more harmful to the human mind than most people know.
Bob the Bastard said,
>>>>>Darwin and Lincoln can be linked to more than just mere birthdays.<<<<<<
If it were not for their shared putative birthdays, it is very doubtful that Darwin and Lincoln would have been connected at all.
Also, Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist.
Larry posted,
>>>>>Also, Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist.<<<<<<
Okay, that came out of left field kinda. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Or is it just another sensationalist assertion that compares Lincolns views on race to today's standards while ignoring the fact that 99% of white males during the mid 1800s probably had similar or worse racial prejudices against blacks?
I've noticed this effort to somehow link Darwin with Lincoln before. It rather clearly stems from a "bright idea" by some believers in Darwinism, that they can advance their faltering cause by celebrating Feb 12 as the birthday of Lincoln AND Darwin.
It's doubtful that Lincoln ever even heard of Darwin, since he has more pressing concerns in 1859: such as a looming civil war. Hence he very probably knew nothing about Darwin's wild and fanciful speculations about how life, and humans, supposedly emerged.
Trying to connect Darwin with Lincoln does suggest a certain desperation in Darwinfanland.
Also, Larry is from California.
What the heck do these two statements have to do with anything being discussed here?
Answer: nothing
You should look up the phrase "straw man" and consider whether you've been guilty of presenting one or not...
Bob the Bastard said...
>>>>> is it just another sensationalist assertion that compares Lincolns views on race to today's standards while ignoring the fact that 99% of white males during the mid 1800s probably had similar or worse racial prejudices against blacks? <<<<<
You are contradicting yourself. First you claimed that one thing that Lincoln and Darwin had in common was that both were not racists -- now you are saying that Lincoln was a racist by today's standards, like 99% of white males during the mid 1800's. Well, maybe Darwin was also a racist by today's standards -- and if both were like 99% of contemporary white males in regard to racial views, that is no remarkable similarity.
Whateverman said...
>>>>>>What the heck do these two statements have to do with anything being discussed here? <<<<<
What two statements are you referring to?
There are a lot of comments here -- you should be more specific.
Whateverman said...
>>>>>>What the heck do these two statements have to do with anything being discussed here? <<<<<
Larry asked: What two statements are you referring to?
1. Also, Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist.
2. Also, Larry is from California.
Both are equally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> Both are equally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. <<<<<<
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
I see you reading comprehension skills are as spectacular as ever. Please read the post again. I was merely inquiring as to your justification in labeling Lincoln as a racist and white supremacist, and whether you were making comparisons between whatever views on race Lincoln had during the 1800s with current views. So which is it Larry? Gonna deflect the question with some other outrageous assertion?
Also to Jim:
It doesn't matter if Lincoln never heard of Darwin or read his works. Their are similarities in their respective ideologies that are worth exploring. It's also rather shortsighted of you to assert that the two were entirely unrelated when you consider Lincoln's involvement with the abolition movement and the literature that Darwin himself contributed to various abolition movement publications. What a fearful and small-minded man you are.
Once again, Larry, you fail to understand that the thoughts in your head aren't magically transported to the blog readers.
Why is Lincoln being a white supremacist relevant to this conversation?
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> Why is Lincoln being a white supremacist relevant to this conversation? <<<<<<
You are on "ignore," bozo.
Post a Comment
<< Home